American's belief of global warming sinking – below 50% for the first time in 2 years

Washington (CNN) – A rise in skepticism among Americans over global warming is mostly due to changes among Republicans, according to new national poll.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Monday, indicates that two-thirds of all Americans believe global warming is a proven fact. That’s down eight points since June of 2008, with views among Democrats holding steady while Republicans’ belief in global warming dropping 11 points.

“The growing skepticism among Republicans, with no matching shift among Democrats, suggests that the changes measured in this poll may be a reaction to having a Democrat in the White House rather than a shift in underlying attitudes toward global warming,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

The poll’s release come as a United Nations climate summit opened in Copenhagen, Denmark. That global conference began under a cloud of accusations, after international attention the past two weeks over hacked e-mails that suggest some scientists faked data to support the argument of global warming. But Holland notes that polls released last month from other organizations have found similar shifts in views on global warming for several months. He says that indicates the changes in the new CNN survey are not the direct result of the media attention to the leaked e-mails from climate researchers.

According to the survey, roughly a third of the people who believe in global warming think it is due to natural causes, rather than manmade causes such as industrial emissions. As a result, the number who say that global warming is caused by humans has dropped from 54 percent last summer to 45 percent now.

The poll indicates the number who say the U.S. should reduce emissions even if other countries do not follow suit has also dropped, from 66 percent in 2007 to 58 percent today.

“That drop is due to roughly equal changes among Republicans and Democrats, suggesting that economic conditions, rather than political factors, may be at play,” noted Holland.

Why do a majority support lowering emissions when most Americans no longer think emissions cause global warming? “Americans may have other reasons to support a reduction in carbon dioxide and other gases,” Holland says. “Pollution is pollution, and the country has been worried about clean air long before global warming became a topic of discussion.”

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted December 2-3, with 1,041 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus 4.5 percent for the overall sample.

Nit-pick: misplaced apostrophe in your title.
I am incensed at the continual confusion in public commentary between acceptance of “Global Warming” and acceptance of the AGW hypothesis. Are the reporters just ignorant? Are most respondents to these polls also ignorant of the difference? Or is the obscuring of this difference pure spin?
Skeptics generally BELIEVE in a changing climate that includes warming trends such as occurred in late 20th century. That’s the whole point — change is normal! It is the AGW’ers who are “deniers” — deniers of the normality of change, deniers of the MWP and deniers of the MIA.

Wow, I bet CNN are upset that they, and the rest of the MSM, have failed in their primary roll – to formulate public opinion to conform with political dogma.
This shows that people still have the ability to think for themselves; the next step is for them to remember they also have the ability to act.
Always remember. we are many and they are few.
The clock is ticking and I think we are in for some interesting times.

God Bless America!!! You’ve got to love a country where 58% of people think that they should be reducing GHG emissions regardless of other nations, 75% think they should reduce GHG emissions in partnership with other nations, but only 45% think that AGW is a fact.
Conclusion – at minimum 30% of US folks are morons (that is the 30% who think GHGs should be reduced even though they don’t think they cause warming).

ot news from n.z.
A senior geologist drilling off the New Zealand coast has called for the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be “killed”.
Today, Prof Carter argued that the study of climate change had been “captured” by the small group of well-connected, well-networked and well-funded atmospheric scientists and computer modellers who advise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
He claimed that the course of climate history and change on Earth should be the domain of geologists, “not meteorologists and computer jockeys”.
A lot of charges have been made that I think are quite unjustified, cherry-picking information and… misrepresenting what it’s actually saying,” he said.
But Prof Carter said the “global warming scare” was a scam and the hacked files had demonstrated “scientific malfeasance” of an influential and internationally well networked segment of the climate research community.http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6562679/scientist-drilling-off-nz-drills-ipcc/

“Pollution is pollution, and the country has been worried about clean air long before global warming became a topic of discussion.”
That’s what it’s really all about.
The leading scientists know this.
Even though I am a FIRM believer in natural climate variations, I’ve never felt politically motivated by the climate “issue” because I’m not opposed to pollution reduction. I made drastic changes in my lifestyle to reduce (by probably a factor of 10 to 100) the amount I pollute 15 years ago. [I pollute less than people who ride the bus (because I walk or kayak 95% of the time when I travel).]
The thing that infuriates me is how long it is going to take to understand nature because research on natural climate variations is being FIERCELY obstructed (for clearly political reasons). It is very important to understand weather & climate (& nature more generally) for reasons other than the climate “issue”.
I’d prefer that pollution reduction be achieved by honest means, but I remain politically neutral because the fake climate “issue” affects only my research work, not my belief system.

Skepticism in NZ seems to be growing as well. On NZ TV tonight there was phone in poll after a believer ( Gareth Morgan,economist) and a skeptic ( Ian Wishart, journalist) had a brief debate.
You can watch it at http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/climate-change-confusion-you-decide-3241785/video
The poll was 77% in favour of the skeptic having the most convincing argument. Yes I know phone in polls are of little value but it was the first time I have seen climategate get a positive airing on our MSM TV. This program has very high ratings.

“The poll indicates the number who say the U.S. should reduce emissions even if other countries do not follow suit has also dropped, from 66 percent in 2007 to 58 percent today.”
Why, if only 45% believe that human emissions are responsible, do 58% still figure we should reduce emissions anyway??? What is the MATTER with these people?!
And just curious… any democrats here can shed some light on whether your side is holding up or not? (for the record, while I applaud the republican resistence, I have no favored party).

Mapou (00:11:32) : “Quick, get Phil Jones or Michael Mann to reconstruct the results of this poll through the intensive use of well-placed proxies.”
But wouldn’t that only result in an insignifcant finding that doesn’t change the overall picture? 🙂

Gregg E. (00:05:44) :
Yeah I just read “The Last Centurion”. This mess is also looking like Pournelle, Niven and Flynn’s “Fallen Angels” from 1991. I think the greenies are using it as a manual on how to set up a green police state.

>>I’m adopting a term for whitewashing and covering up the scandal that is Climategate: GREENWASH
That word belong to the greenies meaning corporates that push green propaganda with out meaning it – but I agree it should be co-opted.
I have another – GREENMAIL – dodgy climate scientists who fool gullible and ignorant academics, media and politician into pushing their agenda.

I wrote a post in response to a BBC R4 programme discussing science and policy (in general, but prompted by climategate). My perception is that people with a weak science background tend to treat the word of a scientist as the word of an oracle, either accept it blindly, or ignore it – they find it very difficult to engage with in a meaningful way. I think that most of the readers here probably tend to forget that, since we have already demonstrated we are an inquisitive bunch.http://www.houlihane.co.uk/blog/2009/12/08/science-evidence-and-policy/

This is Al Gore’s Interview with Liz Hightower of Outside Magazine, December 2009
Al Gore: Mr. Climate Is Back!
The former VP talks about his new, solutions-based book.http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200912/al-gore-our-choice-interview.html
Outside Magazine, December 2009
By Elizabeth Hightower
“Our Choice (Rodale Press, $27) explores so many promising ideas, from efficiency gains to a U.S. super-grid that would transmit more energy farther and faster. Where do we start?
Efficiency improvements offer the fastest opportunities for progress. And the best way to unlock all of those solutions is to put a price on carbon. We ought to immediately take steps to protect forests, and we need to pay attention to some of the enabling infrastructure like the super-grid and encourage the more rapid development of advanced battery systems.
Are we doing any of that right now?
Definitely. We haven’t made as much progress as I would have liked, but we have seen a big change since President Obama’s inauguration. The stimulus bill kick-started construction of a U.S. super-grid. The one piece that is still in formation is the placement of a price on carbon. It’s extremely unwise to continue using a system for valuation that completely ignores the destruction of the planet’s ecological integrity.
You write that, when we do start to pay for carbon, a lot of companies suddenly won’t look so profitable.
No question about it. There are millions of business plans that assume carbon-dioxide emissions have zero value, and those business plans are in danger of becoming obsolete rather quickly. So, yes, there is a sub-prime carbon-asset bubble that is going to have to be dealt with. Many businesses are already taking steps to reduce their exposure, but so long as business leaders are penalized for slightly missing quarterly earnings projections, they’re going to be irrationally resistant to investments that are good for their shareholders in the long term.
You’d think that, with China staking its renewable-energy claim, we’d be stampeding to invest. What’s the holdup?
Inertia. A second reason is this short-term investment horizon, and a third factor is the legacy political power of carbon polluters, who are just digging in their heels. A change as large as this doesn’t happen quickly, but we are very close to a political tipping point.
How do you talk to those climate-change naysayers?
The denial movement is in its sunset phase—and they’re putting on a spectacular display just before they fade. The scientific evidence is so overwhelming now. And people are seeing changes all around them: Older people are telling their grandchildren these patterns are different. Farmers are no longer able to predict the arrival of rainfall. People who look for birds are finding dramatic shifts in their range. They must not watch Glenn Beck.
So what’s more important in our own lives: trying to be greener or pushing for political change?
They go together. All of us can make changes, but the changes that are most needed are not lightbulbs and windows but laws and policies and treaties. So, yes, we are in a phase of this struggle where civic and political action are at the top of the list.
What do you do about your own carbon footprint?
Tipper and I have put in solar panels, new windows, additional insulation; we drive hybrids; we purchased green electricity from renewable sources—the geothermal took our natural-gas bill down to zero. But it’s all-pervasive. The bigger changes are going to come from laws.
But people still criticize you for flying around so much.
I fly commercial except in rare instances, and I offset my travel. But in getting the word out and getting the change under way, I think it’s important to go to places like Copenhagen, where you can make a big difference. Having said that, I’ve also cut down on travel.
Now that the book’s out, do you have any adventures planned? I know you’ve climbed Mount Rainier with your son.
That backpack gets a little heavier above 14,000 feet, but it was great fun. We tend to do our outings closer to home. I go up to wilderness areas and to Center Hill, a lake near Nashville. I got some friends to build me a houseboat with solar panels and bio-diesel engines—it’s a big toy, but it’s fun and I don’t travel halfway around the world to get there.”
NOTE: This interview was not in Copenhagen. For some reason, Gore was more comfortable talking to one reporter on her own halfway up a mountain in the middle of nowhere.

I know I stated that Obama was good for the US in one of my very earliest posts here (And it was more to do with what the Bushes have done to the US in their time inparticular oil and war, not made clear by me at the time), and initially it did look that way (IMO). But, like Kevin Rudd in Australia (IMO will be. Rudd you have lost most of your Australian support, you certainly will not have mine), does anyone think Obama will be a one-term wonder?

we just had a phone in poll on TV1 in New Zealand after listening to a warmer & a skeptic both of whom have published books Ian Wishart ( author of Air Con) & Gareth Morgan (Poles Apart) the poll results were 77 % believed skeptic Ian Wishart and only 23 % believed Gareth Morgan.
The results stunned the moderator !

I’m feeling ugly today.
But I have to congratulate NZ on this. You’re a shining example of hope, and you can be proud that you are of the few sane left on the planet.
How easy is it for an American to move to NZ? Seriously.

Benjamin (00:02:31) :
“The poll indicates the number who say the U.S. should reduce emissions even if other countries do not follow suit has also dropped, from 66 percent in 2007 to 58 percent today.”
Why, if only 45% believe that human emissions are responsible, do 58% still figure we should reduce emissions anyway??? What is the MATTER with these people?!
Maybe they don’t like smog, and reason that cutting emissions of EPA designated ‘pollutants’ will cut emissions of stuff that makes them cough and blocks sunshine out and makes their washing dirty.
This may seem like a reasonable approach to someone who doesn’t understand all the scientific nuances.

The losses are not confined to Republicans. Independents are dumping AGW en masse. Climategate broke the dam. Older Democrats see it too.
The proponents of the AGW Agenda come across as dismissive and highly condescending. The air about them is really hard to take.
America just got a dose of what the skeptics have been getting, and the polls show the result.

It is true that Republicans generally distrust science and scientists.
For example, when it comes to evolution, most Republicans see no reason why the Bible should not be held up as a definitive explanation for the creation of the world…the 7 day hypothesis, that holds that the earth was created in 7 days about 5000 years ago and that dinosaurs and man coexisted at the same time.
While most scientists believe that the world is billions of years old and that dinosaurs predated man by millions of years Conservative Christian Creationists consistently champion the Old Testament Biblical view and lobby for equal time to teach their view in school.
The same disdain for science is playing out in the Global Warming debate with the world’s scientist on one side and forces backing the continued use of fossil fuels (Oil rich nations like Saudi Arabia, major oil corporations, entities that wish to continue burning fossil fuels.. and , of course, many in the Republican party, which usually sides with big businesses.
Not being a scientist my tendency is to go with the view of a majority of scientists. And the vast majority of scientist believe their research shows that there is a human element in global warming.
Of course, it is possible that this is just a big conspiracy by climate scientist around the world to boost their cause and make themselves more important.
Though I find it hard to believe that thousands of scientists from China, India, Europe and North America all agreed to promote bogus science. To do that they would have had to get together with interpreters and try to hammer out an plan of action. Pretty hard to do without being discovered.
In addition, some of those big developing countries stand to take a big economic hit if the science of global warming turn out to be true . Despite that , they are reluctant supporters of their scientists views that global warming is fact and not fiction.
So the arguement seems to boil down to two camps: On the one hand are those that benefit from the continued use of fossil fuels…namely oil companies like Exxon and petrol rich nations like Saudi Arabia.
On the other…the scientists who really don’t stand to lose one way or the other.
Having some respect for science (yet knowing that it isn’t infallible), I tend to listen to what the scientist are saying.
And of course as they continue to research Global Warming new data will undoubtedly surface to give credence to one .side or the other.
For now, though, the overwhelming support for the concept of Global Warming by scientist all over the world has my attention.

If CO2 is ‘pollution’, then the biosphere is pollution and the earth would be better off dead.
‘Pollution’ is a very interesting concept with a long history; it is ultimately a prescriptive concept of moral valuation, and does not work very well in the context of the objective, descriptive discourse of natural science.
If a coal-powered generating plant puts tons of SO2 into the atmosphere, that is surely pollution, as the word is used in current English. But what about the tons of SO2 emitted by volcanic eruptions–does that count as pollution too? Is SO2, per se, a ‘pollutant’?
Ibid for CO2.

norris hall (05:10:11) :
It is true that Republicans generally distrust science and scientists.
For example, when it comes to evolution, most Republicans see no reason why the Bible should not be held up as a definitive explanation for the creation of the world…the 7 day hypothesis, that holds that the earth was created in 7 days about 5000 years ago and that dinosaurs and man coexisted at the same time.
——
Most? Really? I am sure you have a reputable source for that claim.
Of course not, because you just made it up.

Tallbloke,
I think you’re on to something there. If you listen to Ed Begley’s debate/interview the other day he goes right at “smog over LA” when solid questions about the validity of the science behind CAGW were posed. Heart’s in the right place – I don’t like air pollution either – but this whole thing is allegedly based on climate science – not air quality
Norris,
I’m really, really hoping your post was just a troll. The whole neutral scientists all in consensus vs. knuckle-dragging-creationist-republicans and “big oil” paradigm wore thin a long time ago.

R. Craigen (23:24:31) :
Nit-pick: misplaced apostrophe in your title.
I am incensed at the continual confusion in public commentary between acceptance of “Global Warming” and acceptance of the AGW hypothesis. Are the reporters just ignorant? Are most respondents to these polls also ignorant of the difference? Or is the obscuring of this difference pure spin?
Skeptics generally BELIEVE in a changing climate that includes warming trends such as occurred in late 20th century. That’s the whole point — change is normal! It is the AGW’ers who are “deniers” — deniers of the normality of change, deniers of the MWP and deniers of the MIA.

In the spin to discredit ClimateGate, the talking heads keep telling us the data shows the earth is warming and therefore we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Either they are willfully ignorant or deliberately misleading people.

Going along with expensive measures to combat AGW, a way in the future and probably paid for by someone else, is one thing, especially during a boom. With a downturn in the economy and looking at higher prices now, it all looks different. That’s when voters who never thought about it much, and took a lot on trust, start to concentrate and change their minds.
This trick of using every and every extreme weather event to reinforce the idea that Catastrophic Global Warming is happening, is fine in a hot summer. In a cold winter, it backfires.
The other thing is that you can only keep people in a state of fear for so long, when the spell breaks, they either yawn or become angry.

norris hall (05:10:11) :
Your rant (which is all it is) suffers from the usual logical fallacies that Alarmists use. The Straw Man, which you use several times seems to be a favorite, as well as your use of the Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority. These are all tactics used by those who either have no interest in, or indeed do not have the truth on their side – by liars, in other words.
Care to try again? Next time, hopefully, doing a bit of research first?

reliapundit,
The temperature reconstruction(s) that form the graph, that form the basis of the linked article has serious problems. There is mounting evidence that past warm periods have been suppresed (MWP… for Christ’s sake – they used to grow wine in Northern England… and don’t get me started on the unfounded allegations that this was only a local phenomenon) and current instrument record “adjustments” have biased the recent record upward. From a scientific POV, which sets the bar very high, I would say that article is not true based on what I know of the data that is the basis of the argument.
After all, garbage in -> garbage out

The people who believe we should still reduce emissions of GHG’s even though they don’t believe humans are responsible for climate change suffer either from cognitive dissonance and/or ignorance of the severely negative economic impact that doing so will have on our economy, on economies world-wide, and indeed, on their own quality of life.

My moderate-liberal brother says that many of his colleagues are confused by his skepticism on global warming. They think that since he is a democrat he should believe in global warming. He, of course, says it has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with facts and science.
I find my conservative view points stand in the way of my global warming views as well. Most people assume that I have my AGW views just because I am conservative. No, I just believe in facts…..

Read:1066: The Year of the Conquest by Howarth and find out how pleasant
England was-until Duke William screw’d it up.The big thing was how warm and pleasant it was.Warm bad Cold good-no I don’t think so….
5 F at my home this am-didn’t get as cold as they were saying….

CNN is a fully ‘on board’ media proxy for the AAM alarmist cult, they have close links to green industries that stand to make billions out of the cap and trade/subsidies/anti CO2 regime being brought in. When you look at the one sided and often poisonous coverage of things like the Heartlands conference of last year, it becomes all too clear that CNN has a vested interest in its poll coming to the conclusions it claims.
The BBC in the UK just happens to have had a poll carried out on its behalf by a company called globescan and it too came to more or less the same conclusions as this poll and by strange coincidence the BBC is every bit as fanatical and biased toward the AAM cultists, funny that!
The thing about polls carried out by vested interests is that they nearly always get the result they are looking for to begin with, its the ‘8-10 cats prefer whiskas’ routine, people trust polls to be transparent and honest yet the evidence shows us time and time again that pollsters are there to make money like any ad agency, they have client bases with special needs and the pollsters cater for those needs.
Globescan and the BBC have a very cosy relationship, globescan can expect repeat custom IF it gives the BBC the correct answers and so on the basis of repeat business it does just that.
A pollster that tells the client things they do not want to hear will suddenly find other pollsters along the line will receive the business next time. Think of pollsters like ad agencies instead of impartial opinion finders, the pollsters primary aim is repeat business and a growing client base.

Warmists often accuse people of being “conspiracy nuts”.
But put it in perspective. Many voices say that we need a new world based on sharing and selflessness. But the problem is most of the world’s population is selfish. So how do you get people to do the right thing?
The Buddhist voices, for example, have the notion of “skillful means”—this is the moral correctness of lying when necessary. The new world of selflessness has to be introduced in terms that the existing world of selfishness will understand—cooperate or you will all suffer biblical floods and economic ruin, for example.
There is no conspiracy nutness about this—it is just good salesmanship.
If you want to change the world, you have to lie to people. If people already wanted it, they’d already be asking for it, and there would be no need to manipulate people into it.
All the sceptics have done is notice that in terms of evidence, it is looking more like a fiction than a truth.
We could of course simply trust the experts, but you know, there are many experts in the world. There are those who say that, the only proven method of shifting people towards greater compassion, is meditation and forms of prayer. You can run little experiments with groups of people, measure their brain waves, assess their behaviour and attitudes, and meditation is the only thing we know of that actually shifts people systematically towards more compassion. So, save the world? Learn to meditate. Takes about 10 – 20 years.
But most of the world savers are stuck in a materialistic way of looking at things (they’re actually part of the problem). They think that to stop starvation, you need to redistribute wealth, for example. All their thinking is about materials, and little is about teaching people hot to shift towards more compassion. This used to be the role of religions, but they got so thoroughly discredited that people how have to be a priest by another name. Again, sounds like a conspiracy? It’s the only way it can be done.
My personal objection is that scaring people into resource competition will just lead to global war, because the initial problem—people are more selfish than selfless—is the starting condition and hasn’t been changed—and so people will deal with global resource conflict from a selfish stance, and the politicians will lead their countries in such a manner—and the losers will lose big time. A minor criticism, I’m sure.

Norris,
IPCC does NOT actually represent “world’s scientists” – it simply CLAIMS to do so.The same disdain for science is playing out in the Global Warming debate with the world’s scientist [IPCC, Politicans & Media] on one side and forces backing the continued use of fossil fuels (Oil rich nations like Saudi Arabia, major oil corporations, entities that wish to continue burning fossil fuels.. and , of course, many in the Republican party, which usually sides with big businesses.
If you understand that ‘world’s scientists’ is just a catch phrase for a political agenda then you may open your eyes to what is happening.
Of course, big business and fossil fuel companies and Saudi Arabia will try to defend the use of fossil fuels as they all depend on either selling fuels or use of cheap energy (the majority of industry depends on this: to grow food, power machinery and transport goods to market – and by proxy so do we all depend on them for our prosperity and the food on our tables). However, this does not mean that the political agenda or motives of this group is any worse than the IPCC alarmists.
If you want to appeal to science then do some research and analysis and form your own opinion but please do not blindly trust the IPCC, UN and the Media and their claim to have all the “world’s scientists” speaking for them: this is EXACTLY what Al Gore, IPCC, UN and Media WANT you to do – don’t let yourself be manipulated. I would add that it is wise not to completely trust big oil or Saudi Arabia either – due to their vested interests which you quite rightly identify – but DO NOT for one moment believe that there are no vested interests running the “spin” on the other side….billions and billions are at stake.

Enlightenment has finally come, I have worked out how to sell this to News International’s tabloid section!
I heard of this study which was measuring the average size of women’s breasts.
In general, they were getting a little bit bigger from about 1750 up to about 1940, in proportion to increasing height. Then with the war and rationing, and all the obsession with being thin they got a little bit smaller for about 40 years.
But they’ve been running away uncontrollably since then. Especially at the measuring station to be found near LAX.
And you know what: this danger to mankind is all the fault of men!
Industrialists who invented silicon implants! Surgeons who implant them! And men who for whatever reason find them more exciting than ‘naturally occurring breasts’.
I’ve seen the chart and, believe you me, no women never ‘ad no massive knockers when it was hot in the MWP!
Clearly all resistance to climate change will now disappear!!!!
@Penthouse 2009

norris hall (05:10:11) “[…] it is possible that this is just a big conspiracy by climate scientist around the world to boost their cause and make themselves more important. Though I find it hard to believe that thousands of scientists […] all agreed to promote bogus science. […] Pretty hard to do without being discovered.”
Actually not so hard.
Personal anecdote:
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:
Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.
Follow the money — perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.
Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.

Quoting Norris Hall:
Having some respect for science (yet knowing that it isn’t infallible), I tend to listen to what the scientist are saying.
Commenting:
Then listen, please, to these >31,000 scientists, including 9,000 PhD’s, including Dr. Edward Teller and Dr. Freeman Dyson.http://www.petitionproject.org/
That compares to a claimed 2500 IPCC signers. But, oh yes, the IPCC changed the conclusion from “no evidence” to “clear evidence” of AGW without their permission.

We need political leadership that will stand up and run on the explicit goal f defunding and defanging the Obamafication of America.
No more ‘czars’
No more bureaucrats imposing taxes by way of CO2 regulation.
No more of government targeting industries for destruction based on phony science.
Audit and review for complete openness and transparency from all government funded science. No more simply trusting ‘the scientists’ because they say ‘trust me’.
The science/public policy intersection has happened before, with terrible results. Think ‘eugenics’.
Turning America’s economy in effect over to obviously partisan bureaucrats, using the veneer of what we now know is corrupt science, is not going to be better for us than eugenics was in the past.

R. Craigen (23:24:31) :
Nit-pick: misplaced apostrophe in your title.
I am incensed at the continual confusion in public commentary between acceptance of “Global Warming” and acceptance of the AGW hypothesis. Are the reporters just ignorant? Are most respondents to these polls also ignorant of the difference? Or is the obscuring of this difference pure spin?
——
I agree, but it looks to me that that’s a WUWT headline. I’m one of the 32% that aren’t even sure there has been GW, though I wish it would start here.

“…. He says that indicates the changes in the new CNN survey are not the direct result of the media attention to the leaked e-mails from climate researchers.”
media attention? Does he imply that CNN not only knows of the leaked emails (notice he doesn’t say hacked) but has diligently reported on them. This mention is on of the few I’ve seen from CNN referring to Climategate.

The Telegraph has this just now from ” Will Heaven is a writer who specialises in politics and the internet. He also writes about Catholicism and religion.” Have they now accepted that AGW is a religion?
I made the observation that the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) were also under a cloud and indeed that some of their people may face criminal charges.

R. Craigen (23:24:31) :
“I am incensed at the continual confusion in public commentary between acceptance of “Global Warming” and acceptance of the AGW hypothesis.”
And then for me, I am a CAGW denier, not a AGW denier. Idon’t believe a degree or two C increase would be bad for the world (actually, I think it would be a good thing.) and I don’t think the Catastrophism is based on any real science. And I am a skeptic as to how warm it has really gotten in the past 100 years when considering the surface stations and the statistical tricks used to fill in the gaps. So where would I be in the poll?
Just a note: it infuriates me that when Holland says: ““Americans may have other reasons to support a reduction in carbon dioxide and other gases,” Holland says. “Pollution is pollution, and the country has been worried about clean air long before global warming became a topic of discussion.”
Equating C02 to C0 or other pollutants is just insane.

OK. I’m also tired of all of the political pigeon-holing.
I consider my-self quite conservative. I am a lifelong scientist. I am an AGW skeptic. I think I might be religious(i’m not sure), but don’t belong to any specific group. I believe in evolution. I believe in gay rights. I am pro-choice and anit-abortion…..
Most importanly I believe in freedom, small government, and the rights of myself and others. And I believe in the destruction of elitism.
Is anyone else sick of being pigeon-holed based on a single belief or group that they hold dear? It’s time to stop this nonsense and show your cards! Both scientific and political discourse in this country needs to change!

norris hall,
I assume that your opinions are sincerely held, and if so you have raised some interesting points. Many people do believe in AGW because it is the consensus view of “thousands of scientists.” This is a valid position to take and seems reasonable on the surface. The problem arises when we try to pin down these “thousands of scientists.”
The figure came from the number of authors and co-authors who were referenced throughout the fourth IPCC report in 2007. However, it is important to understand that most of the report has NOTHING to do with the question as to whether CO2 is responsible for present warming. Most chapters deal with issues of land use and management, computer modelling, paleoclimatology and economics.
It is only in chapter 9 that the IPCC attempts to ask the question – how likely is it that the current warming is due to manmade CO2? If we count the number of scientists who have contributed to this, we arrive at a figure much less than “thousands”. The actual figure is 52. There is also an appendix to the report that lists reviewers comments. Chapter 9 contains at least 60 reviewers who have rejected the conclusion that humans are “very likely” responsible for current warming. In other words, more scientists directly oppose the motion than agree with it.
Many of the 52 scientists are among those implicated in the climategate scandal. One of the worst excesses of their over zealousness has been to blacklist skeptical scientists from having their work published in peer reviewed journals and in at least one case, having a “troublesome” editor removed. And yet, there are many, many climate scientists who have published literature that contradicts the “consensus”. Some names include,
Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Akasofu, Douglass, Loehle, Zoriata, Scaffeta, Pielke, Von Storch, Svensmark, Choi, Cazanave.
And they are only a few of the climate scientists. There are many more. If you include those of the base sciences – physics, geology etc – they number in their thousands. So, no, you don’t need a conspiracy of thousands. Just about 20 would suffice. As long as they are in key positions such as CRU, GISS and NOAA.

A typical example of how easy it is to mislead ordinary people is the CNN poll showing ‘97% of climate scientists think humans contribute to climate change’
What the poll does not state is the number that think the human contribution high enough to cause dangerous tipping point runaway global warming and how many think the contribution is negligible and cannot effect the planets natural climate cycle.
Around a decade ago there was a concerted attempt by some governments to gain political control of science research budgets, the was a drive to centralize funding through ever more controlled funding channels, those who control the funding control the research direction and funding is critical for scientific institutions everywhere, without funding nothing gets done so chasing and sucking up to the source of funding becomes very important to scientific institutions.
In effect the fake consensus has been bought by the use of highly selective funding of those scientists who toe the line, these have been granted the gift of the client mass media coverage for their findings which in turn reinforces the funding levels, a cycle of interdependency thriving on the media love of scary headlines and money controlled by vested interests.
In effect the politicians are not listening to the science as they love to claim they are buying the science to use as a cover for something very different. Capping carbon emissions will not alter the climate one bit,raising taxes on the backs of ordinary people will not alter the climate one bit, creating a massive legal authority to control the essence of an industrial civilisation(the energy matrix)will not alter the climate one bit.
The tragic truth is that the whole man made global warming idea is a fraud built to conceal a hidden agenda, when the curtain is pulled back it reveals a surprisingly small number of people pulling the strings and using a surprisingly small number of people to create the illusion of a consensus.

The arguments put forward in the NZ televised debate best represent the real issues. Neither author is a “climate scientist,” Morgan is an Investment Manager most likely with a stake in green energy, Ian Wishart is the author of “Air Con,” a skeptic with a stake in book sales.http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/climate-change-confusion-you-decide-3241785/video
Morgan, a multi-millionaire who hired a research/ghost writer for his book “Poles Apart” uses a studied, laconic delivery to claim he only cares for the “science.” We are led to believe he’s something of a scientist himself – yet he only refers to one skeptical scientist, Svensmark that, “I had access to.” No mention of the APS Petition, or 30,000 men and women who signed the Orgegon petition, or of Soon, Happer, Dyson, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Akasofu, Douglass, Loehle, Zoriata, Scaffeta, Pielke, Von Storch, Idsos, etc. ???
Morgan does offer this thoughtful plea: “But for God’s sake, don’t use a hammer to crack a nut!” Indeed! something in Denmark should smell rotten – given the “balance of evidence” Morgan presents. BTW Gareth, I find about the only thing that does the job on a Brazil nut – is a hammer.
Poll results: 77% to 23% for Mr. Wishart’s arguments.

RE: my last, yonason (13:55:47) :
NOTE – That’s only current temps. What you need to do is search that website (Wolfram Alpha) using the indicated search terms, then select “All” from the dropdown menu. It will show that there has been NO CHANGE in avg., temps there since 1948.

See what really caused the late 20th century temperature run-up.
A simple, science-based EXCEL model has been derived that accurately (sd = 0.064 C) predicts all average global temperatures since 1895. The model did not need any consideration whatsoever of changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas.
A description of the model and its development along with an eye-opening graph that shows measured and predicted average global temperature are in the pdf dated Oct 16 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true

Norris, quite the successful troll you are. OK, I’ll bite. I’m a republican. I have an engineering PhD. I believe in evolution and am pro-choice. I also know, unlike a certain high-profile democrat, that the earth’s core temperature is not millions of degrees. I do not believe in AGW for the simple fact that modern day temperatures are not unprecedented. Much as Mann et. al. would and have tried to eliminated the MWP and Holocene optimum, they haven’t come close to convincing me. Even their own temperature proxies which “prove” that modern temperatures exceed those for thousands of years fail the test because they have to manually edit out the last 50 years of data to match with modern temperature records. Meanwhile, Viking graves in Greenland are still below the permafrost depth. So, when modern day humans are capable of living in Greenland using 11th century technology give me a call.
I am also extremely tired of the left equating skepticism of AGW with creationism. Here’s another comparison for you: the Spanish Inquisition and modern day AGW advocates. Shall we list the similarities? One dogma to rule them all: IPCC. Anointed bishops to guard the so-called truth: Hansen, Mann, Jones. Intentional suppression of dissenting views via a perversion of the peer review process. Calls for court trials of so-called climate criminals. All of these actions should make anyone who knows anything about the scientific process cringe and retch with disgust. The tragedy is that years ago in undergrad I got very angry sitting in a humanities class and listening to all of the liberal arts majors claim that science was no better than their soft studies. I pointed to the scientific method, falsifiable results, sharing and REPRODUCTION of results as key differences to the liberal arts world. Now, years later I have to tragically admit that they were right and that politics can be just as corrupting in what I had thought the hard sciences as anywhere else. That is the true legacy of your “overwhelming evidence.”

It’s extremely unwise to continue using a system for valuation that completely ignores the destruction of the planet’s ecological integrity.
So true. We should be paying extra to the CO2 emitters for the benefits that plants are getting from an enhanced CO2 environment.

As someone who lived in the Los Angeles area from the polluted 1950’s till 1992: Saying that auto smog is still a problem in the U.S. has no idea what real smog is like. An example, in 1958 I bought a new pair of German over your eyeglasses goggles and rode my motorcycle through downtown LA. The next day the strap had rotted into lace. Your eyes tearing constantly was standard in the downtown area. East of downtown was worse. The various air quality beauracracies keep lowering the thresholds to stay at the money trough. I have been in Seattle on my bicycle on middle level smog alert days and had none of the familiar symptoms of air pollution. And like New York: Puget Sound sea water is now clean enough for teredos and gribbles to survive and attack the wharf pilings.[REPLY – Same deal for the Jersey Turnpike. Folks just don’t (or won’t) remember how truly awful it was. Ah, the smell of it! (It burns! It Burns!) ~ Evan]

Mr. Paul Vaughan,
Your statement is interesting.
I would be very interested in seeing some of these funding application instructions – particularly which institution(s) is/are offering these grants.
Is it possible that you might be able to have a few of them put up as examples?

> Paul Vaughan — Personal anecdote:
Paul, elsewhere someone has challenged this claim of yours. Can you cite any specifically, publicly accessible data (i.e., an openly available funding specification) to support it, please? I don’t think it’s an overly unreasonable request, offhand on their part, though the snark level means, if you can provide an example of such a request, that it will be quite pleasant to ram it down their throats.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy